EXH0090017786

PCHBPollution Control Hearings Board of the State of Washington

this is not to be produced as deliberative but needs to be identified in the list to ACC and any other public disclosure requesters. _onginal Message---- From: Yee,ChungK. Sent: Monday,Sepmmber11.2000 4:10PM To: Marchioro,Joan(ATG) ,f" Subject: FW: NewMethodA SoilCleanupLevels / / /" --Original Messag_ From: Kmet,Peter Sent: Monday,September11,2000 3:44PM - / To: Yee, ChungK. / Co: Fitzpatrick,Ke_in Subject: NewMethodA _ CleanupLevels Here are a series of tables showingthe calculationsfor the new Method A soil cleanup levels and providinga comparisonto the current Method A values. TASL?4_.XL$ As I noted inour phone conversation, one point I didn't include in my earlier commentswas ground water monitoring. I still think itwould make sense to require that given the magnitude of the fill. You asked Whether I thought the Method A values could be used as a basis for definingclean fill. I understand there are some concerns about whether this can be done legally. Puttingaside that issue for the moment, as I look at the Method A cleanup values in light of this use, several thoughts come to mind: We believe the current standards are not protective for several chemicals. That is why we are proposing new values. You should require them to use the new standards (assuming we end up adopting the:,_). One exception is arsenic. I think you need to lookcarefully at that value as the calculations indicate the current Method A arsenic soil cleanup level may not always be protective. We plan to revisit that value in a future rule-making. In the interim,you…
V V